|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 28, 2015 16:28:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 30, 2015 6:17:47 GMT -8
Interesting opinion. There are a lot of things we in the general public do not know about the ways to defend a Carrier Task Force. When we get a responsible administration in place we will see which way we decide to get our Military back up to speed. From what I know or think I know we will still build Carriers.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 1, 2015 8:00:47 GMT -8
Interesting opinion. There are a lot of things we in the general public do not know about the ways to defend a Carrier Task Force. When we get a responsible administration in place we will see which way we decide to get our Military back up to speed. From what I know or think I know we will still build Carriers. Haters continue to hate even when addressing a topic that has no political bearing. Pathetic.  |
|
|
|
Post by thepapacy on Jun 1, 2015 8:10:37 GMT -8
Interesting opinion. There are a lot of things we in the general public do not know about the ways to defend a Carrier Task Force. When we get a responsible administration in place we will see which way we decide to get our Military back up to speed. From what I know or think I know we will still build Carriers. Haters continue to hate even when addressing a topic that has no political bearing. Pathetic. his fixation borders on licentious |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 3, 2015 10:33:12 GMT -8
Interesting opinion. There are a lot of things we in the general public do not know about the ways to defend a Carrier Task Force. When we get a responsible administration in place we will see which way we decide to get our Military back up to speed. From what I know or think I know we will still build Carriers. Haters continue to hate even when addressing a topic that has no political bearing. Pathetic. Now, now, just relax a bit and consider the issue calmly. There are a couple of ways that one might decide to reduce the attack carrier fleet. One is because you are, perhaps barely consciously, prejudiced against America's status as a super power. I really think that Barack Obama would be more comfortable with a United States that is significantly less influential politically on the world stage. And that would almost certainly mean at least somewhat less powerful militarily. Rand Paul might well have views similar to those of our current POTUS in that regard. The other possible reason to stop building super carriers is because you believe that their time has passed. The linked article takes that view, and I have to believe the author is probably on to something. It's one thing to lose a 20,000 ton ship and still have two sister ships ready for action. It's another to lose an 80,000 ship that was so expensive that no sister ships could be built. I just love battleships. I have numerous books about battleships and I visit pertinent websites often (e.g. just read a piece on why German battleships were more potent and sturdy than those of the Brits in WWI). But there is no way that I, nor anyone else for that matter, would for a second consider it wise to build new Iowa class battlewagons. The author of the linked article makes a strong case that we should build no more super carriers. Instead, we should plan for a day when much smaller flattops will be able to launch numerous supersonic unmanned fighting aircraft capable of doing what F-35s can do. But at much lower cost and with much less risk of losing personnel. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 3, 2015 11:00:33 GMT -8
Haters continue to hate even when addressing a topic that has no political bearing. Pathetic. Now, now, just relax a bit and consider the issue calmly. There are a couple of ways that one might decide to reduce the attack carrier fleet. One is because you are, perhaps barely consciously, prejudiced against America's status as a super power. I really think that Barack Obama would be more comfortable with a United States that is significantly less influential politically on the world stage. And that would almost certainly mean at least somewhat less powerful militarily. Rand Paul might well have views similar to those of our current POTUS in that regard. The other possible reason to stop building super carriers is because you believe that their time has passed. The linked article takes that view, and I have to believe the author is probably on to something. It's one thing to lose a 20,000 ton ship and still have two sister ships ready for action. It's another to lose an 80,000 ship that was so expensive that no sister ships could be built. I just love battleships. I have numerous books about battleships and I visit pertinent websites often (e.g. just read a piece on why German battleships were more potent and sturdy than those of the Brits in WWI). But there is no way that I, nor anyone else for that matter, would for a second consider it wise to build new Iowa class battlewagons. The author of the linked article makes a strong case that we should build no more super carriers. Instead, we should plan for a day when much smaller flattops will be able to launch numerous supersonic unmanned fighting aircraft capable of doing what F-35s can do. But at much lower cost and with much less risk of losing personnel. AzWm AW - The "Now Now" portion of your post should be directed at Win, not at me. He is the one that politicized the discussion. However the rest of the post makes an argument. I read an article on real clear defense a while ago which also suggested that super carriers were outdated. The author suggested building many smaller carriers that would be less expensive and more flexible. The author of your article also raises the topic of a type of ship called the 'Arsenal Ship'. Google it. It has been an idea that is brought up every five or ten years ever since the last battleship was decommissioned. |
|
